A COUPLE whose cat was killed in a frenzied attack by a dog earlier this year are furious that the Crown Prosecution Service has dropped its case for justice.

In March when the incident occurred North Wales Police said they were treating the case as a “critical” incident because of the devastation it had caused the cat’s owners and the community in Deganwy.

Christine and her husband Delwyn Williams were watching television at their home at Heulfryn when they heard what they described as a “blood-curdling” scream.

They both ran up their road to hear what the noise was, and to their horror their beloved ginger tabby Owain Goch was struggling for its life in a dog’s mouth.

Christine said: “It happened at around 8.45pm on March 31.

“The horrible blood-curdling scream was our poor Owi, who was hanging out of this lurcher-type dog’s mouth.

“Whilst Delwyn was trying to prise the dog’s jaw open, the owner of the dog just stood by doing nothing to help.

“It was hard to free Owi, as the poor thing had been impaled by the dog’s teeth. When we got him, Owi was covered in blood and his breathing was terrible.”

Christine wrapped her pet up in a blanket and rushed him to a vet. However, Owi’s injuries were so bad that despite emergency care he died during the early hours of the morning.

Witnesses said the attack was a deliberate one.

Delwyn positively identified an alleged perpetrator in an ID parade held by North Wales Police.

However, earlier this month the CPS contacted Mr and Mrs Williams to say they had dropped the case.

District Crown Prosecutor Gerallt Evans said: “There is no doubt that this was a deeply disturbing incident which caused grave distress to the Williams family and our sympathies are with them.

“The Code for Crown Prosecutors requires us to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

“In this case, our ability to form a prosecution case depended on identification of the defendant. After the defendant was linked to the case, a police identification procedure took place at which Mr Williams was able to identify him.

“However, it became clear that before this the witness had gone to the defendant’s address and seen him there. Unfortunately, this cast doubt on the objectivity of the subsequent identification procedure.

“Two other eye witnesses failed to pick the defendant out at a video identification parade and there was no other evidence that could be used to support the accuracy of the identification.”